SchansBlog

Thanks for coming! I plan to post a lot of interesting articles and comment on a wide range of things-- from political to religious, from private to public, from formal writing on public policy to snippets on random observations.

Bergman on eugenics, economics and political economy

Jerry Bergman’s The Darwin Effect is a wide-ranging survey on the impact of Charles
Darwin and Darwinism on culture, political philosophy, social policy, and
economic policy.

His first three chapters serve as an
introduction to Darwin and Darwinism. Among many interesting details, Bergman
notes the impact of Darwin’s family tree. Of particular interest to economists,
he connects Darwin to John Maynard Keynes: his sister-in-law was Darwin’s
grand-daughter; his mother and Darwin’s daughter worked for an organization
that promoted eugenics. (12)

From there, Bergman turns to Darwinism’s
role in American culture. In Chapter 4, he ties the growth of racism to
Darwinism. “Racism has a surprisingly recent origin” and its growth “parallels
the rise of evolutionary thought.” (25) “Skin color was of little importance in
most parts of the world throughout much of recorded history.” (26) Or as Stephen
Jay Gould wrote: “biological arguments for racism may have been common before
1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of
evolutionary theory.” (135)

In Chapter 8, Bergman extends the argument
by connecting KKK rhetoric and practice to Darwinian philosophy. Darwinists
believed that blacks were closer to apes than whites. (17, 37) As an aside, Bergman
notes the irony that gorillas, chimps and orangutans all have white skin! (35) Darwin
believed that the Negro race and all other “lower races” would eventually be
eliminated by survival of the fittest. (66) He believed in living “primitive
races” (67), including blacks and other immigrants. His cousin, Galton Darwin
believed that some dogs were smarter than “some races” of humans. (56-57)

Some of the confusion stemmed from early
science on brain size and intelligence. Brain size is correlated with intelligence,
but the causation is with diet and environment, rather than size per se. Fortunately,
“research has slowly demolished the view that some races are biologically
inferior to others, demonstrating the brotherhood of all humans as taught in
Genesis.” (75)

Along the same lines, Bergman points to
the biblical concept of “monogenism”—where all humans are related and biological
inferiority is far more difficult to assert. In contrast, “polygenism” is
implied by Darwinism. And so, the evolution of different classes of people
became tenable, since natural selection could, in theory, yield profound
differences. (27-28) Moreover, Christianity makes no claims about racial
inferiority (38)—whether the inclusion of Jews and Gentiles in God’s redemptive
plan; the incident in Numbers 12 where God supports Moses’ interracial marriage;
or the “every race, tribe, people” references in Revelation.

Bergman also notes that females were
routinely judged as inferior to males, using evolutionary rationales. (12) “Female
inferiority was a logical conclusion of the Darwinian worldview, because males
were believed to be exposed to far greater selective pressures…A male must
prove himself both physically and intellectually superior…a woman must be
superior only in sexual attraction.” (219) For awhile, men and women were even classified
as distinct species. (220) As such, evolutionists and progressives often held a
dim view of women in politics, including opposition to women’s suffrage. (229)

Bergman devotes chapters 9-11 to the
impact of evolutionary thinking through circuses, zoos, and “freak shows” in
the late 19th and 20th centuries. Barnum & Bailey’s
circus plays a central role. Ota Benga, a Pygmy, was displayed at the Bronx Zoo
in the early 20th century as an Ape-Man. People with handicaps,
diseases, and genetic deformities (microcephalic, dwarfism, hirsutism) were
sold to the public as “missing links” into the 1970s. In a word, Bergman argues
that millions of people were influenced through pop culture and pseudo-science.

All of these historical details are
fascinating and sobering. But then, Bergman turns to the connections between
Darwinism, political philosophy, and public policy. He notes “how often—and how
easily—Darwinism has been exploited for sinister political ends” (9), ranging
from “the radical Right to the extreme Left”. (10)

Bergman has three chapters on “eugenics”.
Eugenics was promoted as a social good—or even for the good of the individual
as “mercy killings”. (83) Again, science crossed into pseudo-science and ethics
with little difficulty. Breeding had been effective with animals and plants.
Progress and science might dictate the same for humans.

At the national level, Bergman notes how governments
embraced Darwinist ideas, leading to mass murder and genocide. From the British
in Tasmania (chapter 6) to Marxist Communism (chapter 14), Chinese Communism (chapter
15), and general fascism and genocide (chapter 17), he argues that Darwinism was
not the only factor, but still primary. (353)

Bergman devotes chapter 16 to the impact
of Darwinism on the atavistic theories of criminality that dominated the criminal
justice field through much of the 20th Century. He also notes how
Darwinism wrongly influenced the courts (63-64)—ironic given the unscientific faith
in courts by those who enjoyed the judicial black eye given to Intelligent
Design theory in Kitzmiller v. Dover
(2005).

Unfortunately, at least for an economist,
Bergman’s weakest effort is (chapter 13) on “Social Darwinism” and what he
labels “ruthless capitalism” (a term he uses 16 times). He describes “robber
barons” in general, but focuses most of his attention on the views of Andrew
Carnegie. Bergman notes the immense philanthropy of the “barons”, but dismisses
it since the money did not go to “the direct relief of the unfortunate
classes.” (261) He rightly notes that Christianity exhorts disciples to take
care of the needy, vulnerable, weak (39)—whereas Social Darwinism calls for
survival of the fittest and argues against such efforts. But laying this at the
feet of the “robber barons” is an unwarranted stretch.

Bergman’s history is consistent with
“conventional wisdom”, but not supported by a coherent definition of greed or
capitalism—or an understanding of the role of competition (or not) in economic
markets. Worse, he conflates laissez-faire
economics with the pursuit of government to enhance monopoly power. The irony
in all of this is that businesses were often worried about laissez-faire and “cut-throat business practices”—and thus, sought
government protection for their industries. (Gabriel Kolko’s The Triumph of Conservatism [1977] is
must-reading on this topic.)

You can skip the chapter on economics, but
Bergman’s work is still helpful for understanding the impact of Darwinism on
cultural norms and social policy.

Thursday, April 12, 2018

on anti-science (on both the Right and the Left)

This is a slightly-edited version of an email to a colleague...---------------------------- I don't know if you're *particularly* interested in the topic we talked about
the other day. But I've read on it widely and thought about it a lot. "The
Left" has certainly been able to make the case in the public arena that
they're paragons of virtue in this regard while "the Right" is a
mess. And there's certainly a good bit of this on "the Right". But
from what I can tell, the reality is somewhere between "far more
complicated than that" and "leans significantly the other way".

And of course, good people can disagree on the inherent trade-offs within, say,
economic growth vs. mandated environmental quality. Of course, an economist
would insist that the costs be at least acknowledged. But this is not all
that common on "the Left"-- or even, in general (as is common in
political economy and public policy). For example, when was the last time you
heard someone talk about the benefits of global warming, well-define the benefits
of policy proposals against global warming, or detail the costs
of policy RX's? This is a common problem-- that is inconsistent with an
emphasis on scientific thinking-- that is quite/more common on the Left.And
then there are the clear cases where the Left struggles with science and
scientific process-- from the recent ironic and painful struggles with free
speech and critical inquiry on college campuses to policy positions such as
anti-nuclear and anti-GMO. Even "social issues" are relevant in this context--
with the recent de-emphasis on biology in matters of gender and elevating
metaphysics over what science says about life on the topic of abortion. There's
more to life than science, but one can't champion science and then conveniently
downplay or ignore it!Another great way to distinguish Liberals vs. mere Democrats and those on the Left: the latter pair downplay (or even hate) science in many ways-- and I just figured out another example! They usually don't like federalism-- allowing states to experiment with various social programs (e.g., welfare, health care/insurance). They don't want to collect data, run experiments, acknowledge the complexities at hand, etc. Not impressive; not scientific; not liberal.

trying to define "liberal"

How could one define "liberal"-- as opposed to someone on the Left, a progressive, or various posers among self-styled liberals? (Here's an essay on this topic from me a decade ago (!) to define liberal with an emphasis on different types of self-styled liberals.) The exercise is difficult and my efforts would be debatable. But it's an interesting exercise. Let me give it a try (and then stick it in my blog!).

"Liberal" would include an emphasis on:

1.) freedom and choice (with its implied connections to the importance/usefulness of knowledge and education),

2.) equality of opportunity (at least rule of law and equality before the law-- but could extend into questions about access to resources and redistribution to allow more choice);

3.) tolerance socially and in terms of legislation (allowing and extending freedom to others);

4.) humility vs. self-righteousness in style (given their understanding about limits on knowledge and acknowledging the validity of different preferences); and

5.) openness to change and experimentation, esp. socially (see: tolerance) and politically (avoid limiting freedom; look to expand freedom; state and local is more promising than federal).

This is along the lines of what is often called a "classical liberal" today. Anything to add to my list here?

Some prominent, ironic, nasty contemporary examples of illiberal positions held by self-styled liberals: insisting on an overly-expensive govt monopoly in education over the poor (instead of giving them resources so they can exercise choice-- as the GI Bill, Food Stamps, etc.); shouting down speakers at universities instead of engaging in dialogue; insisting on federal approaches to health care or how to handle the gun/violence problems in schools.

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

why give your employer so much monopoly power over you?

Why would folks be so passionate to make sure that government is their primary employer-- giving huge monopoly (monopsony) power to entities that are often inept, sometimes corrupt, and almost always horrible with budgets?

When K-12 teachers work so hard to enhance their monopoly power over parents, students, and taxpayers (by opposing charters, vouchers, etc.), they are necessarily asking for the same power to be used against them.

Do they not understand this trade-off-- or they don't like it and are just doing what they can to tilt the trade-off in their direction?

Thursday, April 5, 2018

don't insist on having the govt be your only possible employer (to the detriment of students and taxpayers) and then complain about the results

It seemed like a stretch for Dr. Jones to
appropriate Dr. King's work in this essay-- except the Memphis problem
was about the government mistreating its employees. Thoughts on what Jones writes here:

-If K-12 teachers are underpaid, it's
because they're dealing with a monpsonist that they have insistently
constructed and defended, by fighting school reform (e.g., vouchers,
charters) through their unions. If you are (and don't want to be)
underpaid, don't set things up where the govt is your only significant
employer. #WhoWillBuildTheRoads

-We pay college coaches so
extravagantly (in men's b'ball and football) because of the monopsony
established by the NCAA labor market cartel, supported by the
government. #Exploit

-He notes that K-12 teachers
aren't eligible to receive Social Security-- as if that's some sort of
curse. What a great blessing! They aren't required to pay into an
expensive system that yields a 0% rate-of-return!

-Does he have
something useful to add on pension reform-- dealing with the tension of
accepting an incoherent compensation package? Here, he just complains
about the problem.

-He is in favor of continuing
the massive regressive subsidies to higher-ed. OK, but I think that disqualifies you from being considered a "liberal".

-He complains about the
prospects of tenured profs getting fired for budgetary woes. This is a
legitimate point, but it's always been a last-resort for universities
(unless KY has unreasonably been different in this regard; UPDATE from Chris Lang: they can fire folks with ten days' notice independent of budget woes or program dissolution).

About Me

First and foremost, I am saved by God's grace as manifested most clearly through the atoning death of Jesus Christ-- and thus, adopted into His family. As a result, I increasingly seek to extend His grace to others in my daily life. On the home front, I am a husband and father to four young men (two by adoption and two the more conventional way). Professionally, I am an economist who loves to teach and is active in public policy circles. Vocationally, I am an active writer and the author of three books (one on the book of Joshua; two on public policy-- one secular, one Christian). Finally, I am the co-author of a 21-month discipleship curriculum, Thoroughly Equipped (and a lighter 36-week version), for developing competent lay-leaders in the Church. Related to that work, Kurt and I have two books, Enough Horses in the Barn and Roll Up Your Sleeves.